Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 2532–2539 | Cite as

Early (<10 mm) HER2-Positive Invasive Breast Carcinomas are Associated with Extensive Diffuse High-Grade DCIS: Implications for Preoperative Mapping, Extent of Surgical Intervention, and Disease-Free Survival

  • Tibor Tot
Breast Oncology



The few publications on <10-mm invasive breast carcinomas have reported worse outcomes for women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive cancer compared with HER2-negative cases and indicated that the high risk of recurrence in HER2-positive cases is related to the high grade, hormone receptor negativity, and high proliferation index of the invasive tumor component.


We studied the subgross morphology of such tumors in a consecutive series of 203 cases documented in large-format histology slides and worked up with detailed radiological–pathological correlation.


The invasive component was associated with a diffuse in situ component in 78 % of the HER2-positive and 26 % of HER2-negative tumors <10 mm in size (odds ratio [OR], 11.3936; P < .0001). The in situ component was of high grade in 75 % of HER2-positive and 9 % of HER2-negative cases (OR, 29.6000; P < .0001). Significant associations were also found between the HER2 positivity of the invasive component and diffuse combined lesion distribution (P > .0001), invasive tumor grade 3 (P = .0004), presence of vascular invasion (P = .0026), extensive disease (P = .0170), “not special” (ductal) histological tumor type (P = .0302), estrogen receptor negativity (OR, 7.8846; P < .0001), and high Ki67 proliferation index (OR, 5.0000; P = .0007). The HER2-positive tumors tended to be multifocal (OR, 2.000) and lymph node-positive (OR, 3.0147), but the tendency was not statistically significant.


The vast majority of <10-mm HER2-positive breast carcinomas exhibited a high-grade, diffuse, and extensive in situ component, which may explain the high risk of recurrence among these tumors.


Invasive Breast Carcinoma Epithelial Growth Factor Receptor Invasive Component High Ki67 Proliferation Index Sick Lobe 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author is thankful to his excellent colleagues: Drs. Nadja Lindhe, Mats Ingvarsson, and Prof. Laszlo Tabár, radiologists; Drs. Anders Cohen, Gunilla Christensson, and Maria Annerbo, breast surgeons; Drs. Maria Gere, Gyula Pekár, Syster Hofmeyer, breast pathologists; and all the other members of the Multidisciplinary Breast Team at Falun Central Hospital.


  1. 1.
    Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987;235:177–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seshadri R, Firgaira FA, Horsfall DJ, McCaul K, Setlur V, Kitchen P. Clinical significance of HER-2/neu oncogene amplification in primary breast cancer. The South Australian Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:1936–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology; College of American Pathologists. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013:31:3997–4013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Curigliano G, Viale G, Bagnardi V, Fumagalli L, Locatelli M, Rotmensz N, et al. Clinical relevance of HER2 overexpression/amplification in patients with small tumor size and node negative cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5693–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonzales-Angulo AM, Litton JK, Broglio KR, Meric-Bernstam F, Rakkhit R, Cardoso F, et al. High risk of recurrence for patients with breast cancer who have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive node negative tumors 1 cm or smaller. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5700–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rom J, Schumacher C, Gluz O, Höfler J, Eidt S, Domschke C, et al. Association of HER2 overexpression and prognosis in small (T1N0) primary breast cancers. Breast Care. 2013;8:208–14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rouanet P, Roger P, Rousseau E, Thibault S, Romieu G, Mathieu A, et al. HER2 overexpression a major risk factor for recurrence in pT1a-bN0M0 breast cancer: results from a French regional cohort. Cancer Med. 2014;3:134–42.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tot T. Clinical relevance of the distribution of the lesions in 500 consecutive breast cancer cases documented in large-format histologic sections. Cancer. 2007;110:2551–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pekár G, Hofmeyer S, Tabar L, Tarján M, Chen TH, Yen AM, et al. Multifocal breast cancers documented in large-format histology sections: long-term follow-up results by molecular phenotypes. Cancer. 2014;119:1132–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tabar L, Chen THH, Yen AMF, Tot T, Tung TH, Chen LS, et al. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Suggestions for the reconsideration of current therapeutic practice and the TNM classification system. Cancer. 2004;101:1745–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tot T, Pekár G, Hofmeyer S, Gere M, Tarján M, Hellberg D, Lindquist D. Molecular phenotypes of unifocal, multifocal, and diffuse invasive breast carcinomas. Pathol Res Int. 2011, Article ID 480960.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tot T. Early and more advanced unifocal and multifocal breast carcinomas and their molecular phenotypes. Clin Breast Cancer. 2011;11:258–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tot T, Tabár L, Dean PB. Practical breast pathology. New York: Thieme, 2002. pp. 115–23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tot T. The role of large-format histopathology in assessing subgross morphological prognostic parameters: a single institution report on 1,000 consecutive breast cancer cases. Int J Breast Cancer. 2012;2012:395415.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lindquist D, Tot T. Disease extent ≥4 cm is a prognostic marker of local recurrence in T1–2 breast cancer. Pathol Res Int. 2011, Article ID 860584.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    AJCC cancer staging handbook, 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); 2012.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19:403–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nitta H, Kelly BD, Padilla M, Wick N, Brunhoeber P, Bai I, et al. A gene-protein assay for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2): brightfield tricolor visualization of HER2 protein, the HER2 gene, and chromosome 17 centromere (CEN17) in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissue sections. Diagn Pathol. 2012;7:60.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Templeton A, Ocana A, Seruga B, Vera-Badillo F, Carlsson L, Bedard P, et al. Management of small HER2 overexpressing tumours. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136:289–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini MP, Micheli A, Conti A, Riva C, et al. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:223–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Millis RR, Ryder K, Fentiman IS. Ductal in situ component and prognosis of invasive carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;84:197–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van de Vijver MJ, Peterse JL, Mooi WJ, Wisman P, Lomans J, Dalesio O, et al. Neu-protein overexpression in breast cancer. Association with comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ and limited prognostic value in stage II breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:1239–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L, Robanus-Maandag EC, Bosch CA, Duval C, et al. Histological type and marker expression of the primary tumour compared with its local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:539–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tot T. DCIS, cytokeratins, and the theory of the sick lobe. Virchows Arch. 2004;447:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Foschini MP, Morandi L, Leonardi E, Flamminio F, Ishikawa Y, Masetti R, et al. Genetic clonal mapping of in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma indicates the field cancerization phenomenon in the breast. Hum Pathol. 2013;44:1310–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pathology and Clinical CytologyCentral Hospital FalunFalunSweden

Personalised recommendations